In Re:Estate of Krasinski, S. Appeal of:Krasinski
1265 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- Decedent Sophia M. Krasinski died in 2006; her will directed the residuary estate to be divided equally among her four children and did not specifically devise real property nor authorize the executor to sell real estate.
- The executor, Edward Krasinski, arranged a private sale of decedent’s real property; the Orphans’ Court entered an order on April 30, 2013 confirming that private sale.
- Patricia Krasinski-Dunzik later contested aspects of the sale and its consequences; the Estate also appealed other issues to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court issued a majority decision disposing of the Estate’s appeal; Judge Shogan concurred in that disposition but wrote a separate concurring/dissenting memorandum.
- In her opinion, Judge Shogan concluded the April 30, 2013 order confirming the private sale was interlocutory and not appealable as of right or as a collateral order, and she argued Patricia’s challenges to the private sale were therefore not waived.
- Judge Shogan also concluded the Estate—not Patricia—was responsible for taxes resulting from the private sale, consistent with the decedent’s will provision requiring estate payment of death-related taxes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Patricia) | Defendant's Argument (Estate) | Held (Judge Shogan's view) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the April 30, 2013 order confirming a private sale was final/appealable | The order should be treated as final and appealable; failure to appeal waives challenge | The order was final or otherwise appealable and challenges are waived for failure to appeal | The April 30, 2013 order was interlocutory, not final, and Patricia’s issues regarding the private sale were not waived (Judge Shogan would reach merits) |
| Whether the April 30, 2013 order was appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(6) | The order determined interests in property and thus fit within appealable categories | The order was appealable under Rule 342 or other provisions | The order was not appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(6) because the estate, not heirs, owned the property until legal title passed; Rule 342 did not apply |
| Whether the order was immediately appealable as a collateral order under Pa.R.A.P. 313 | The sale authorization was effectively separable and appealable | The sale authorization was central to estate administration and not collateral | The order was not a collateral order under Rule 313; disposition of the real estate was central to the estate and tied to final account/distribution |
| Who bears tax liability from the private sale | Patricia argued she should bear tax consequences (as per Majority) | Estate argued estate should bear taxes under the will | The Estate is responsible for taxes: decedent’s will required payment of death-related taxes from the residuary estate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Habazin, 679 A.2d 1293 (Pa. Super. 1996) (confirmation of the personal representative’s final account constitutes the final order)
- In re Estate of Quinn, 804 A.2d 541 (Pa. Super. 2002) (confirmation of final account is the final order)
- In re Estate of Stricker, 977 A.2d 1115 (Pa. 2009) (order directing sale of estate realty in administration is not immediately appealable under Rule 313)
- In re Estate of Ash, 73 A.3d 1287 (Pa. Super. 2013) (order directing sale of real estate not specifically devised did not decide an interest in property)
- In re Estate of Cherry, 111 A.3d 1204 (Pa. Super. 2015) (sale of estate realty is central to administration and not a collateral order for immediate appeal)